57 minutes ago, Nivrap said:

The issue I have with this is that even the RAW itself leaves much up to interpretation, and while it would be nice to have a common frame of reference, the truth is that people still debate about stuff even within the confines of RAW. You mention that it's simple to say "If you do Darkside stuff, you go Darkside," but people can't even agree on what that is, especially when Star Wars canon leaves much of it up to interpretation. So if not everyone likes the rule, and nobody can agree on anything even while using the rule, then what good is the rule?

That's why you don't debate it.

That's why you have the pre-campaign chat that leaves no doubt going into the thing. "I am gonna use the Conflict Table, please be mentally prepared for that."

It doesn't matter what people can agree on, that's why you have the GM role at the table. To arbitrate things that are left up to interpretation.

7 hours ago, emsquared said:

That's why you don't debate it.

That's why you have the pre-campaign chat that leaves no doubt going into the thing. "I am gonna use the Conflict Table, please be mentally prepared for that."

It doesn't matter what people can agree on, that's why you have the GM role at the table. To arbitrate things that are left up to interpretation.

I don't mean debating at the table, I mean debating here on the forums, which is what I assumed you were referring to. After all, you actually have less arguments at the table if you homebrew a Morality system as opposed to using RAW Morality.

8 hours ago, Nivrap said:

After all, you actually have less arguments at the table if you homebrew a Morality system as opposed to using RAW Morality.

That's a fine opinion, but it is by no means a fact. Or even reasonable.

The simplest solution is to go off of what is already known/knowable to all. Not the thing that you have to explain anew, and which likely necessitates players reconceptualizing how that might relate to their PC concept, and even how they play the game.

On 2/28/2018 at 6:43 PM, GroggyGolem said:

Where health and bullets and spells are concerned, those are defined, integral rules of the game. Where Morality is concerned, it has minimal effect on the mechanics of the game and everything to do with the narrative of the game. I believe warning systems are stupid in RPGs because they train the players to view the message as "you will be punished if this behavior continues" and they tend to resent said system. I'm sure your mileage varies in your groups but in a total of 7 groups and 30+ players, Conflict is viewed as the ultimate evil that one must avoid 99% of the time. Nobody engages the mechanic or uses it to tell cool stories. They look at it as punishment so they actively avoid any decisions that would result in Conflict other than the occasional dark side point to activate powers. If we take the Morality mechanic as narrative primarily, then we must actually apply it in narrative. Stopping the game to say out of character "you will earn bad guy points" interrupts the story and reinforces the idea of it being punishment as it is a consequence of taking said actions. Also, it breaks the narrative. There are only a moment or two, maybe, that the Force tells someone don't do this in Star Wars and both instances were with the Chosen One. Beyond those two moments, the characters in the story have to make decisions on their own without George Lucas stopping the film to say "Hey Luke, Force Choking those gamorrean guards will earn you some Conflict."

I'm all for the rest of the Morality system as it is but the warning part of it doesn't sit right with me and therefore I've removed it. I'm guessing the majority of you feel the opposite as every response to my posts has been trying to reason why the system should be used as it is.

Rather than that, could we discuss the details of the houserule regarding where it can be improved or altered? I'd prefer that over everyone just telling me "use the system as it is written because xyz".

I try to never tell anyone how they should play. If it feels wrong, you should change it. That said, I don’t see an absolute difference between choosing to avoid Conflict because of the risk of slipping to the Dark Side and choosing to avoid conflict because of the risk of PC death. Players prefer to avoid Bad Stuff Happening. They will use metagame knowledge, insofar as it’s available, to assess the risk of Bad Stuff Happening vs the chance of Good Stuff Happening and decide what to do based on that assessment pretty much every time mechanics involving random results (can) come into play.

Now, in your group it appears the players weigh the Dark Side risks too heavily for the official system to work properly while the risks of death (or general failure) are weighted better. If so, go ahead, make some changes. More power to you if you do. My players were a little too apprehensive about going Dark at first too, but after a few sessions they figured out Conflict is pretty manageable as long as they play characters that actually try to act like Light Siders. Which seems to be the point.

On 2/28/2018 at 6:40 PM, GroggyGolem said:

So instead of interfering with every decision they make, further exacerbating the problem of them not engaging the Morality rules in any meaningful way because they can continue to avoid Conflict by taking back a decision that they had already made, I track their Conflict in secret, allowing the system to be used, just in a way that doesn't interfere with their roleplaying and does minimal changes to the existing system.

That sounds very similar to the way I handle it. Keeps the action going. I might ask a clarifying question to a Jedi character—"so you're just going to execute him?"—and then based on the answer I might award more or less Conflict. Then I'll have the players roll their d10s once I feel they've had a good opportunity to generate some Conflict. This usually happens every 2-3 sessions because we only play for about 2 hours at a time.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your revamping of the system. It makes a lot of sense to me!

I am not sure I would give then the chart for examples of dark side actions.

2 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

I am not sure I would give then the chart for examples of dark side actions.

Could you explain why?

3 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

Could you explain why?

I play Star Wars with people that know and love the setting, do I don't feel like I need to explain what the dark side is with a colummned table. I'll work with people narrate some internal conflict, I'll riff on Yoda's words: "Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they." I'll clearly outline the "easy choice" compared to the "right choice." My players get it. They don't argue that they shouldn't get Conflict for assassinating people or for causing a panic in a crowded street.